Assignment Cover Sheet

School of Science & Health

Student name: Ethan Green

Student number: 18498514

Unit name and number: 102083 Diversity, Social Justice and Learning

Tutorial group:

Tutorial day and time: Wednesday 10am

Unit Coordinator: Loshini Naidoo

Title of assignment: Diversity Assignment 1: Essay

Length: 8 pages, 2090 words, excluding references

Date due: 5/4/2019

Date submitted: 2/4/2019

Campus enrolment: Kingswood

 Diversity Assignment 1

Ethan Green 18498514

Throughout education, fulfilling the needs of students with a low socio-economic status (SES) has
often been a challenge for teachers who have traditionally maintained positions of power (Ferfolja,
Diaz, & Ullman, 2018). Just as the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers require knowing
students and how they learn (AITSL, n.d.), an important aspect is recognising the complexities
surrounding poverty and its multidimensional impact on education (Burnett & Lampert, 2018). This
extends to differences in class status of students and teachers and how these intimately connect
with the dominant discourse that both learn to navigate (Burnett & Lampert, 2018; Cazden, 1986).
As social conventions surrounding class form school practice (Huppatz, 2018), binary thinking based
on student-teacher experience has negatively impacted students with a low SES (Burnett & Lampert,
2018). Therefore, educators must be deeply reflective of their own practices and given the role
discourse has in causing such problems, changes need to go beyond addressing equal opportunity.
To support these arguments, Bourdieu’s approach to connecting individual practice with social
patterns will be used to assess the impact of social class but first, critical theory will provide the lens
for engaging in reflection.

Critical theory and its application in education has roots in Marxism and its critique of social class
interactions (Sever, 2012). Sever explains that the centre of the theoretical framework contains
three major concerns; detailing educational injustices, elucidating their origin and developing
solutions to them. Consequently, children of working-class families or minority groups have been the
focus of discussion due to their unfavourable performance in school (Gibson, as cited in Sever,
2012). Furthermore, sociologists in this area have been critical of functionalists, that view school as
an equal opportunity venue for students to ascend social class and hierarchy (Giroux, 2001). The
crux of functionalist arguments such as these, is that education can erase differences, provided
those who do well are rewarded (Sever, 2012). This argument falls apart, however, in that alienation
fails students as they struggle to navigate discourse and condemn themselves to a future without
change. As such, the sociological classic (Davies, 1995) Learning to Labour (Willis, 1977) didactically
summarises the failings in school achieving functionalist myths with its subtitle, How Working-Class
Kids Get Working-Class Jobs. In trying to unravel why, critical theory suggests that privilege is
ingrained in the unequal power between students and teachers (Burnett & Lampert, 2018).
Henceforth, educators need to consider how their experiences, including their own SES influences,
can play a role in social inequities, whether intentional or not. Power typically wielded unconsciously
by middle-class teachers produces a dominant culture that often comes into conflict with students
from high-poverty (Burnett & Lampert, 2018) or working-class background (Willis, 1977).
Simultaneous ignorance of possessed teacher privilege and the inequities faced by low SES students,
births cultural oppositions to school, limiting student futures (Sever, 2012). To combat this, pre-
service teachers need the framework to evaluate their own positions and gain a deeper
understanding of low SES student challenges before they encounter them (Aveling, 2002). Given
critical self-examination is an ongoing process, open forums facilitating reflective practices should be
provided beyond initial teacher education and throughout an educators career (Buchanan et al.,
2013).

Part of critically reflecting comes in readdressing difference. Burnett & Lampert (2018) suggest
students who are different get treated different and the focus on the individual erodes as
stereotypes become the norm. Here, teacher perceptions shape discourse and create an isolating
curriculum (Auwarter & Aruguete, 2008; Kagan, 1990). Furthermore, reduced expectations can come
from low achievement correlating with low SES (Ma, 2000), which can hinders a teacher’s sense of
responsibility (Auwarter & Aruguete, 2008). Research has even found SES can be a better indicator
of achievement than IQ (Rist, 1970), amplifying the role background opportunities play in academic
success. Historically, differential treatment has been observed through teachers providing less
opportunities for low achievers and acting more authoritarian (Dusek, 1975). Subsequent lack of
engagement and support in the classroom results in a substandard learning environment, given that
effective pedagogy requires active student involvement (Wittrock, 1987). Consequently, by high
school, many marginalised students come to view teachers as a blocker of success, dismantling a
sense of control over their educational future (Paton, Walberg, & Yeh, 1973). Such alienation can
lead to maladaptive motivational processes leaving students focusing on their inadequacies, rather
than involving themselves with learning (Dweck, 1986). All these negative influences produce an
image of school as an unattractive option where progress becomes impossible and dropping out is
the more reasonable choice (Wehlage & Rutter, 1985).

To begin tackling issues of disengagement, it is necessary to recognise school’s ability to create

coherent environments with more potency than any single influence (Edmonds, as cited in Kagan,
1990). Just as teachers participate in shaping discourse and producing a biased hidden curriculum
(Auwarter & Aruguete, 2008; Burnett & Lampert, 2018), so to do students navigate the social and
educational hierarchy placed upon them (Kagan, 1990). Using critical theory as an avenue for
progress, teachers need to evaluate their own expectations of low SES students, given their powerful
influence on engagement and success (Kagan, 1990; Sarra, 2005). Open dialogue with the intention
of recognising the importance of mismatched privilege between students and educators is also
needed to understand how hegemonic views come to shape pedagogy, especially since people in
power are often oblivious to this fact (Yoon, 2012). Critical theory framework is also essential in
unpacking how power creates deficit presumptions that impact the education of disadvantaged
students (Burnett & Lampert, 2018). By exposing low expectations, teachers have the potential to
challenge dominant social assumptions regarding capability (Yosso, 2002). Low expectations
reproduce inequalities (Sarra, 2005), so by recognising the dumbed down curriculum teachers create
(Perso, 2012), educators can work towards constructing unbiased futures for students. As such,
equal opportunity in school will remain a myth so long as pedagogical practices continue to maintain
the status quo of power relationships.

Continuing the critical theory framework in tracing the routes of injustices, teachers need to be
aware that privilege and policy can mask student alienation. Without making inequality visible, the
effects of disadvantage become obscured (Burnett & Lampert, 2018). Meritocratic beliefs that all
students are equal so long as they work hard enough (Giroux, 2001) are not only diluted by low
expectations but also delusions that all student experiences are the same (Burnett & Lampert, 2018).
Almost paradoxically, it becomes inequitable to treat all students equally. In addition to the dangers
of binary expectations, it becomes a struggle to balance both noticing and respecting diversity
among students (Burnett & Lampert, 2018). Just as educators need to recognise the role of discourse
in creating inequity, high quality pedagogy cannot forego the value of student identity (Sarra, 2005).
Therefore, teachers should recognise that policy changes designed to improve equity in schools,
such as the Schooling Resource Standard which includes improved SES based funding (Department
of Education and Training, 2018), have little impact on student experiences outside of school. It
cannot change parent income or family social class which often dictates which school children are
sent to (Huppatz, 2018). In developing strategies for effective pedagogy that bridges social
incongruence, teaching staff need to take into account student financial challenges (Devlin, Kift,
Nelson, Smith, & McKay, 2012). From my own experiences, this can include providing students with
textbooks or choosing learning materials available for free online. Whatever the option, achieving
social justice requires we move on from notions of equal opportunity in school and work towards
promoting equity in education. To compliment this framework, the next sections will involve
analysing capital and habitus.

Bourdieu’s sociological approach can complement critical theory in providing the knowledge to
reflect upon student experiences. Examining habitus as a system of dispositions incorporating
individual background (Bourdieu, 1977) can create meaning for teachers and influence their
attitudes to students (Huppatz, 2018). According to Bourdieu, family habitus underlies the
composition of school experiences. As such, knowing students and how they learn evolves from
being a professional standard (AITSL, n.d.), to a core piece of advice for teaching low SES students
(Devlin et al., 2012). Just as engagement is an integral part of effective learning (Wittrock, 1987),
forming valuable connections and communications becomes a baseline for teacher effectiveness
(Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011). Teachers should foster a flexible learning environment, given that
low SES students are often time poor, having to take up financial and carer responsibility (Devlin et
al., 2012). In acknowledging such diverse commitments, different expectations can naturally arise,
but these should recognise the ability of all students to make unique contributions to the curriculum
(Devlin et al., 2012). In allowing space for student contributions, teachers implement a time effective
method of knowing and engaging their students (Devlin et al., 2012), which research indicates is a
significant determiner of teacher quality (Stronge et al., 2011). Consequently, teachers should be
critically examining their own communication with students, given recognition of their habitus can
close the distance between people of differing class and SES (Bourdieu, 1977). Strategies like these
go beyond what policy reforms may accomplish, given they acknowledge an individual’s background
in shaping perceptions and appreciations.

Given that schooling is closely tied to SES (Huppatz, 2018), class is deeply relevant within effective
pedagogy. Huppatz argues that the frame of SES and the privileges that come with it help to identify
the process by which inequality and identity form within the school context. Conversely, the notion
of class is often seen as irrelevant in a society that values the individual (Reay, 2010). In spite of a
perceived devaluing of class, increased engagement with Bourdieu’s theories have arisen (Huppatz,
2018) drawing attention to the process by which education is shaped and reproduced (Lareau,
1987). In adapting Bourdieu’s concepts of capital, qualitative research by Lareau highlights that class
and SES influence parent involvement with school. She suggests that, “Elements of family life that
facilitate compliance” with teachers constitutes a form of cultural capital (p. 73). It is more likely for
middle class families to be capital rich in this case, whereas families from lower economic
backgrounds with more time commitments become culturally poor (Lareau, 1987). Once again, time
poverty proves disadvantaging as low SES families can miss out on forming social networks that
benefit middle class families. Additionally, Lareau uses habitus to funnel discussion, noticing working
class parents were more likely to leave education to the educators, compared to middle class
families that take a more active role. These differences in parent engagement were found to be
valued differently in schools, fostering bias towards middle class families. Through tracking such
favouritism with Bourdieu’s principles, Lareau uncovers how power sustained by capital permeates
through education and reduces expectations of low SES families. Class remains relevant in this
neoliberal society that favours individualism (Huppatz, 2018), given that public identity is shaped
through cultural and economic capital, which is in turn impacted by individual experiences. As a
result, teachers need not only be critical of equal opportunity in school but also be well acquainted
in understanding the experiences of students outside school and within their families. Such
community knowledge forms part of the Australian teacher standards (AITSL, n.d.), emphasising this
engagement as part of teacher professionalism. The next section will conclude this essay.

By using critical theory framework in conjunction with Bourdieu’s theories, teachers can begin to
unpack the role power has on low SES students. These sociological perspectives suggest failure to
recognise and respect differences produces subpar pedagogy. Low expectations that may arise from
misunderstanding the unique challenges low SES students face hinder their engagement. Such
detrimental aspects are amplified in a school environment and become entrenched in discourse. As
both students and educators navigate these expectations, failure to critique context reproduces
inequity. Henceforth, solutions need to address teacher reflection and knowledge of student
circumstances outside of school. Open forums for discussion must exist throughout a teacher's
career and they should challenge ideologies that reproduce inequality. Furthermore, while policy
may address funding issues, it is imperative that teachers adhere to professional standards. Only
they have the potential to learn about individual students and use this knowledge to improve
pedagogical practices by creating supportive learning environments for socioeconomically diverse
students. Teachers should draw on from student experiences so that all may make valuable
contributions to learning. Finally, we cannot simply stop at equal opportunity, given use of
Bourdieu’s theories highlights unique student experiences result in differing engagement. By
maintaining classless illusions, critical theory suggests alienation would only continue. Achieving
social justice requires us to rethink the achievability of school opportunities and focus on equity
initiatives.

AITSL. (n.d.). Teacher standards. Retrieved March 15, 2019, from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards

Auwarter, A. E., & Aruguete, M. S. (2008). Effects of student gender and socioeconomic status on

teacher perceptions. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(4), 242–246.

https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.4.243-246

Aveling, N. (2002). Student teacher’ resistance to exploring racism: Reflections on “doing” border

pedagogy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(2), 119–130.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660220135630
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Retrieved from

https://monoskop.org/images/7/71/Pierre_Bourdieu_Outline_of_a_Theory_of_Practice_Ca

mbridge_Studies_in_Social_and_Cultural_Anthropology_1977.pdf

Buchanan, J., Prescott, A., Shuck, S., Aubusson, P., Burke, P., & Louviere, J. (2013). Teacher retention

and attrition: Views of early career teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3),

112–129. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n3.9

Burnett, B., & Lampert, J. (2018). Destabilising privilege. In Ferfolja, T., Diaz, C. J., & Ullman, J. (eds.),

Understanding sociological theory for educational practices (2nd ed., pp. 85–101).

Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432–

463). Retrieved from http://www.wou.edu/~girodm/library/cazden.pdf

Davies, S. (1995). Leaps of faith: Shifting currents in critical sociology of education. The American

Journal of Sociology, 100(6), 1448–1478. https://doi.org/10.1086/230668

Department of Education and Training. (2018, December 21). What is the schooling resource

standard and how does it work? Retrieved March 20, 2019, from

https://www.education.gov.au/what-schooling-resource-standard-and-how-does-it-work

Devlin, M., Kift, S., Nelson, K., Smith, L., & McKay, J. (2012). Effective teaching and support of

students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds: Practical advice for teaching staff.

Retrieved from

http://www.lowses.edu.au/assets/Practical%20Advice%20for%20Teaching%20Staff.pdf

Dusek, J. B. (1975). Do teachers bias children’s learning? Review of Educational Research, 45(4), 661–

684. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045004661

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–

1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040

Ferfolja, T., Diaz, C. J., & Ullman, J. (2018). Understanding sociological theory for educational

practices (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition

revised and expanded edition. Retrieved from

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Kal3FT7SkbEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge

_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=equal%20opportunity&f=false

Huppatz, K. (2018). Social class and the classroom. In Ferfolja, T., Diaz, C. J., & Ullman, J. (eds.),

Understanding sociological theory for educational practices (2nd ed., pp. 176–191).

Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Kagan, D. M. (1990). How schools alienate students at risk: A model for examining proximal

classroom variables. Educational Psychologist, 25(2), 105–125.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2502_1

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural

capital. Sociology of Education, 60(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112583

Ma, X. (2000). Socioeconomic gaps in academic achievement within schools: Are they consistent

across subject areas? Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(4), 337–355.

https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.6.4.337.6935

Paton, S. M., Walberg, H. J., & Yeh, E. G. (1973). Ethnicity, environmental control, and academic self-

concept in Chicago. American Educational Research Journal, 10(1), 85–91.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1162241

Perso, T. F. (2012). Cultural responsiveness and school education with a particular focus on

Australia’s first peoples: A review and synthesis of the literature. Retrieved from

http://ccde.menzies.edu.au/sites/default/files/Literature%20review%20Cultural%20Respon

siveness%20and%20School%20Education%20March%202012%20FINAL.pdf

Reay, D. (2010). Sociology, social class and education. In Apple, M., Ball, S. J., & Gandin, L. A. (Eds.),

Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 396–404). Retrieved

from
 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215058405_Sociology_Social_Class_and_Educati

on/download

Rist, R. C. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto

education. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 411–451.

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.40.3.h0m026p670k618q3

Sarra, C. (2005). Strong and smart: Reinforcing aboriginal perceptions of being aboriginal at

Cherbourg state school (Murdoch University). Retrieved from

https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/1687/2/02Whole.pdf

Sever, M. (2012). A critical look at the theories of sociology of education. International Journal of

Human Sciences, 9(1), 650–671.

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case

analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal

of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111404241

Wehlage, G. G., & Rutter, R. A. (1985). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the

problem? Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED275799

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working-class kids get working-class jobs. Retrieved from

https://www.depts.ttu.edu/education/our-

people/Faculty/additional_pages/duemer/epsy_5382_class_materials/Learning-to-Labor.pdf

Wittrock, M. C. (1987). Teaching and student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(6), 30–33.

https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718703800606

Yoon, I. (2012). The paradoxical nature of whiteness-at-work in the daily life of schools and teacher

communities. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 15(5), 567–613.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2011.624506

Yosso, T. (2002). Toward a critical race curriculum. Equity and Excellence in Education, 35(2), 93–107.

https://doi.org/10.1080/713845283